REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY.....

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm not saying that other conflicts shouldn't be commemorated - but not at this time - the November commemoration should be for the 2 world wars.

And again 1000 deaths over a 3 year period is incomparable to 20,000 in one day - there were almost certainly more deaths in the first hour of the Somme than in the entire Korean war.

I was more thinking along your conscripts point.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really - quite the reverse - while we simply add the next war and the next British service death (however rare) we somehow create a culture where we simply accept war as a way of life (albeit now professionalised and in far off places) and that all is kind of OK so long as we 'remember' them once a year.

The other problem to my mind is the focus away from the world wars and towards recent conflicts shift the focus away from remembrance and toward a more jingoistic approach to 'big up' our troops. Turning it into something more akin to armed forces day rather than remembrance.

It is clear that others here don't agree - but that is my view - the traditional remembrance commemorations should be for the world wars only.

Again, why is the sacrifice of someone at Basra less memorable. The Wars to End All Wars are meaningless cant if wars don't end and people die for the same old reasons. I'd rather extend the remembrance further and look at the dead of other countries because the jingoism you state is introduced by thinking about some poor sod killed in Afghanistan was there when we ignored the dead of enemies, or those we killed because they deserted.

[Walter]

Not really - quite the reverse - while we simply add the next war and the next British service death (however rare) we somehow create a culture where we simply accept war as a way of life (albeit now professionalised and in far off places) and that all is kind of OK so long as we 'remember' them once a year.

The other problem to my mind is the focus away from the world wars and towards recent conflicts shift the focus away from remembrance and toward a more jingoistic approach to 'big up' our troops. Turning it into something more akin to armed forces day rather than remembrance.

It is clear that others here don't agree - but that is my view - the traditional remembrance commemorations should be for the world wars only.

thanks prof
fair enough

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think so - the scale is important as it is that element that is dehumanising - hence the basic notion of Remembrance - to have the opportunity to remember all those who died in the world wars when the industrial scale of the slaughter means we cannot ever remember them all individually. This nods to the whole concept of the tomb of the unknown warrior - again another key part of the original remembrance.

The death toll in more recent wars is small enough for individual remembrance.

So in 14 years fighting in Afghanistan 450 British service personnel died - in the first day of the Battle of the Somme 20,000 died (probably disproportionately in the first hour) - you cannot compare the two.

There is also, in my view, a key difference between a soldier who has freely chosen a career path in the armed forces fully recognising the dangers (but also presumably recognising the benefits of that career) and a conscript given no choice whatsoever.

I think the idea that because you can remember someone individually means their death is less important is morally repugnant. You  seem to want to say 'hey, because not enough people died at the same time as you, you aren't as important'

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the idea that because you can remember someone individually means their death is less important is morally repugnant. You  seem to want to say 'hey, because not enough people died at the same time as you, you aren't as important'

Where did I ever say that? I didn't.

In fact it is entirely the opposite - to allow those whose deaths were too numerous to be remembered with the same level of respect as those whose deaths were rare enough to allow individual remembrance.

[Robbie]

yes , as a kid at school I fiercely debated against remembrance Sunday as it appeared to glorify war .
It wasn't until my early 20s I began to see things differently, I cant put a finger on why , maybe I just grew up or perhaps the massive physical trauma I experienced may have had some impact on my thinking.

I understand that because used to feel the same as you & then experienced a shift in thinking.
I don't watch the Remembrance service on telly, it's too long & I find it boring when I have switched on but each to their own. No-one is obliged to attend a Remembrance service or ceremony so I'd say if you don't like or approve, don't go or watch.

[Nearly Sane]

Where did I ever say that? I didn't.

In fact it is entirely the opposite - to allow those whose deaths were too numerous to be remembered with the same level of respect as those whose deaths were rare enough to allow individual remembrance.

Hoe does being part of a larger number preclude individual remembrance? Why do you want people to make a special effort for some but not others?

[Nearly Sane]

I understand that because used to feel the same as you & then experienced a shift in thinking.
I don't watch the Remembrance service on telly, it's too long & I find it boring when I have switched on but each to their own. No-one is obliged to attend a Remembrance service or ceremony so I'd say if you don't like or approve, don't go or watch.

Why should Walter stop attending because people want to make it about religion and exclude the dead and their mourners who aren't? Why would a memorial service for those who died have exclusion as part of it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Hoe does being part of a larger number preclude individual remembrance? Why do you want people to make a special effort for some but not others?

Because it is simply impossible to give such a large number the individual remembrance that you can for a small number - and indeed in many cases the dead are simply unknown and their deaths personally unmarked and unmarketable - hence the concept of the unknown warrior.

Compare the countless thousands slaughtered in the first world war whose deaths individually were impossible to mark with the current situation - for example Afghanistan where ever single death was personally and individually marked on the news, where the return of each body was recognised and marked at Wooton Basset.

I'm not saying that the level of individual attention that we can now place on the very rare event of the death of a service man or woman is a bad thing (quite the reverse), but clearly it was impossible to mark each death in the world wars with the same individual respect, which is why I think this collective respect and remembrance should focus on those who died in those mass slaughter wars. That doesn't mean their deaths are more meaningful or more important, but that we cannot mark them all individually so we should have a special (and distinct) way to respect them collectively.

[Nearly Sane]

Why did you wrote so many words to ignore the question? There are millions who died in the world wars who are individually remembered. And as for those killed in all other conflicts, are they all given the Wootton Basset treatment? And even if they are why does that make their sacrifice different? Or indeed mean that they are individually remembered at any specific time?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why did you wrote so many words to ignore the question? There are millions who died in the world wars who are individually remembered.

Read my post.

And as for those killed in all other conflicts, are they all given the Wootton Basset treatment?

They are currently and I suspect will be from now on, unless we end up in a mass slaughter conflict.

And even if they are why does that make their sacrifice different? Or indeed mean that they are individually remembered at any specific time?

Where did I say their sacrifice was different - read my post - I said that the dead of recent wars get individual respect and remembrance impossible for those who died in the mass slaughter world wars - hence it is, in my view, right and proper that the traditional remembrance events should distinctly focus on those for whom the current individual levels of respect is and was impossible.

[Robbie]

Why should Walter stop attending because people want to make it about religion and exclude the dead and their mourners who aren't? Why would a memorial service for those who died have exclusion as part of it?

I didn't use the words 'should' or 'would'. People are free to go where they choose. As far as I know no-one is excluded. You're making too much of what I said which was based on how I feel or might or might not do, in other words an opinion. You really are the arch nit-picker without the mischieviousness.

[SteveH]

So - who wears a poppy? I don't. I don't suppose anyone notices, but it's my tiny protest against poppy-fascism.

[Rhiannon]

I think it’s important to remember that the work of the BL is ongoing, and it isn’t just about older men and their families.

A friend’s husband came back from WW2 an atheist because of what he had seen and I’m sure he’s not the only one to do so. I think it is disrespectful to him and those like him to not have a secular Remembrance Day in some form. An invitation to go to the local church/chapel for a religious service at the end of the ceremony (transport provided) should suffice.

[floo]

I wear a poppy.

[Nearly Sane]

Read my post.
They are currently and I suspect will be from now on, unless we end up in a mass slaughter conflict.
Where did I say their sacrifice was different - read my post - I said that the dead of recent wars get individual respect and remembrance impossible for those who died in the mass slaughter world wars - hence it is, in my view, right and proper that the traditional remembrance events should distinctly focus on those for whom the current individual levels of respect is and was impossible.

Perhaps it is that I don't see it as some sop to make me feel better about tragedy. I think singling out the dead as somehow different because some stranger stood on a road as their coffin past by as not really that important in terms of their actions or suffering. I think the compartmentalizing in this way is indulgent and a bit creepy. It allows people to mouth the pabulum of 'never again' while voting in and supporting govts that piss upon that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wear a poppy.

Likewise - but always a traditional paper one. I'm not a fan of these glitzy poppies that people buy and use year after year.

[jeremyp]

I'm not saying that other conflicts shouldn't be commemorated - but not at this time - the November commemoration should be for the 2 world wars.

And again 1000 deaths over a 3 year period is incomparable to 20,000 in one day - there were almost certainly more deaths in the first hour of the Somme than in the entire Korean war.

Actually, I would say there have been three World wars. The Napoleonic wars were just as wide ranging in global scope as WW1 and just as significant in terms of their outcome. We seem to have forgotten about the people who fought and died in that war.

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps it is that I don't see it as some sop to make me feel better about tragedy.

Nor do I - far from it.

I think singling out the dead as somehow different because some stranger stood on a road as their coffin past by as not really that important in terms of their actions or suffering. I think the compartmentalizing in this way is indulgent and a bit creepy. It allows people to mouth the pabulum of 'never again' while voting in and supporting govts that piss upon that.

But the whole notion is already compartmentalising - remembrance events are effectively always about service personnel deaths, and even then just 'our' service personnel deaths.

I am really not interested in your tit for tat arguments - I think I have made my view pretty clear - for me Remembrance Day is about remembering the mass slaughter of the world wars - and in doing so I try to remember all those that died - service and civilian, British and non British (including the countless 'enemy' death, who just like our troops were simply doing what they were told). I try also to reflect on the horror and waste of that carnage and to use that to shy away from any kind of celebratory or jingostic approach.

It leads me to reflect on the fact that we must be very careful about committing to war, and actually to reflect too that in our new mechanised age the deaths from war tend to be disproportionately civilian and rarely 'our' personnel, which is again very different from previous wars. And that the fact that British service personnel may now be pretty unlikely to be killed in conflict should not make us think war is more acceptable as there are likely to still be countless victims who aren't our troops.

To me the world wars are different - due to the scale of the carnage and until another war comes along to match them (I hope it never does) then they will always be different in my mind.

[SteveH]

Actually, I would say there have been three World wars. The Napoleonic wars were just as wide ranging in global scope as WW1 and just as significant in terms of their outcome. We seem to have forgotten about the people who fought and died in that war.

At least four - the Seven Years War was also global.

[Nearly Sane]

Nor do I - far from it.
But the whole notion is already compartmentalising - remembrance events are effectively always about service personnel deaths, and even then just 'our' service personnel deaths.

I am really not interested in your tit for tat arguments - I think I have made my view pretty clear - for me Remembrance Day is about remembering the mass slaughter of the world wars - and in doing so I try to remember all those that died - service and civilian, British and non British (including the countless 'enemy' death, who just like our troops were simply doing what they were told). I try also to reflect on the horror and waste of that carnage and to use that to shy away from any kind of celebratory or jingostic approach.

It leads me to reflect on the fact that we must be very careful about committing to war, and actually to reflect too that in our new mechanised age the deaths from war tend to be disproportionately civilian and rarely 'our' personnel, which is again very different from previous wars. And that the fact that British service personnel may now be pretty unlikely to be killed in conflict should not make us think war is more acceptable as there are likely to still be countless victims who aren't our troops.

To me the world wars are different - due to the scale of the carnage and until another war comes along to match them (I hope it never does) then they will always be different in my mind.

I note your attempt to poison the well by making some stuff up about my motivation. I disagree with you but I respect it is your opinion. And ultimately this disagreement is meaningless when placed against one death, mourned or not. How we stop the continual march to slaughter is more important.

[ProfessorDavey]

I note your attempt to poison the well by making some stuff up about my motivation.

I didn't and I'm not prepared to engage in that sort of tit for tat as I said previously. So discussion of that sort is now closed.

I disagree with you but I respect it is your opinion.

I trust you mean respect my opinion - while disagreeing with it. That's fine.

And ultimately this disagreement is meaningless when placed against one death, mourned or not. How we stop the continual march to slaughter is more important.

I agree and I do worry that in today's world it is very easy to engage in wars that provide the minimum of risk to British service personnel, zero risk to the wider population, while creating carnage for the innocent local populations in places that we may bomb from afar.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't and I'm not prepared to engage in that sort of tit for tat as I said previously. So discussion of that sort is now closed.
I trust you mean respect my opinion - while disagreeing with it. That's fine.
I agree and I do worry that in today's world it is very easy to engage in wars that provide the minimum of risk to British service personnel, zero risk to the wider population, while creating carnage for the innocent local populations in places that we may bomb from afar.

You stated that I was doing this as part of a tit for tat argument. I don't think it is, nor do I think that us your motivation. So if you want to retract that accusation, then hurfeckinrah.

Your last point I agree with completely but then we still elect people who like to sell arms and bomb people. And I don't see that changing with any mainstream party.

[ProfessorDavey]

You stated that I was doing this as part of a tit for tat argument. I don't think it is, nor do I think that us your motivation. So if you want to retract that accusation, then hurfeckinrah.

I shan't be retracting anything as I don't feel there is anything in my comments that I need to retract.

By the way what on earth do you mean by hurfeckinrah - I suspect it may be peculiarly Scottish but I am nervous about stepping down that line.

Your last point I agree with completely but then we still elect people who like to sell arms and bomb people. And I don't see that changing with any mainstream party.

True - that said I think the selling arms and bombing people are two separate issues. And actually while I accept that plenty of politicians might like to sell arms (as it creates jobs, influence and tax revenue for the UK) I don't think there are actually many politicians that like to bomb people - they may see it as necessary, but I don't image they like it.

[Nearly Sane]

I shan't be retracting anything as I don't feel there is anything in my comments that I need to retract.

By the way what on earth do you mean by hurfeckinrah - I suspect it may be peculiarly Scottish but I am nervous about stepping down that line.
True - that said I think the selling arms and bombing people are two separate issues. And actually while I accept that plenty of politicians might like to sell arms (as it creates jobs, influence and tax revenue for the UK) I don't think there are actually many politicians that like to bomb people - they may see it as necessary, but I don't image they like it.

That you don't feel it is worth retracting a misrepresentation is up to you. 


As for hurfeckinrah. I take it you understand hurrah? And that you can interpolate a word? And the feckin is a softer, generally Irish take on fuckung? Then just put it all together.

How lively that people don't like what the outcome of their actions are!